Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Cancel
20
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ Highly likely, and impossible to stop. $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Commented Jul 4 at 14:23
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Even neglecting the catastrophic ecological consequences of ordinary car accidents and structure fires, nuclear reactors are thirsty, thirsty machines. All these unfortunates have done is replace one vulnerability (electricity distribution) with another (water distribution) - only this time disrupting the system will cause the city to immolate itself and drown in toxic radioactive smoke, instead of just causing minor disruptions. $\endgroup$
    – g s
    Commented Jul 4 at 15:25
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by a “nuclear bomb”? Actual fission bombs will still be very tricky to make, but “dirty” bombs using conventional explosives to scatter radioactive substances will be very easy. $\endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    Commented Jul 4 at 15:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Frame Challenge not worth an answer: who needs a nuclear bomb? Just put some lightly-used fissionables around a hundred pounds of ANFO and choose a city you'd like to irradiate. $\endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    Commented Jul 4 at 17:47
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ (Also, as has been hinted at, a nuclear reactor small enough to power a car would have to be using some highly enriched fuel with a terrifyingly short halflife to be portable - let alone a steam cycle reactor!) $\endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    Commented Jul 4 at 17:49

-